Re: Specs using %define

2015-12-26 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III 
> "PS" == Petr Stodulka  writes:

PS> zip, unzip, git, gzip - are false positives: found "%%" or just
PS> "define*" in changelog

I'm confused; none of those were in the list I posted.

PS> sed - fixed

For fun, what was there:

%ifos linux
%define _bindir /bin
%endif

Wow.  I can't imagine the original purpose of that block, or how long
ago it must have been added.

However, why not actually remove it completely?  What Fedora or EL
release is not going to have _bindir defined?

 - J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Specs using %define

2015-12-26 Thread Petr Stodulka 


On 24.12.2015 22:01, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> To satisfy my curiosity, I grepped the convenient tarball of specfiles
> (http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz) for lines
> matching "(? there were more than 1900 hits.
> 
> Here's a complete (long) list.  I don't think there's much point in
> doing anything about the vast majority of these, but if you're in
> cleaning up your packages then why not?  Also, feel free to let me know
> if any of these are false positives.  (They may be due to %define in the
> changelog or in a "comment", which is also something that should be
> fixed.)  And if you're using %define because you actually need one of
> the peculiar behaviors it exhibits, please let me know because I'd like
> to see an actual example of that.
> 
> (Own goal notice: I have a few packages on this list.  Off to fix them
> up now.)
> 

zip, unzip, git, gzip - are false positives: found "%%" or just "define*" in 
changelog
sed - fixed

Happy new Year :-)
Petr



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Rawhide 20151226 compose check report

2015-12-26 Thread Fedora compose checker 
Missing expected images:

Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64
Workstation live x86_64

Images in this compose but not Rawhide 20151225:

Workstation live i386

Images in Rawhide 20151225 but not this:

Lxde live i386
Workstation live x86_64

Failed openQA tests: 2 of 58

ID: 1770Test: i386 kde_live default_install
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1770
ID: 1769Test: x86_64 kde_live default_install
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1769

Passed openQA tests: 56 of 58
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

rawhide report: 20151226 changes

2015-12-26 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report 
Compose started at Sat Dec 26 05:15:02 UTC 2015
Broken deps for i386
--
[IQmol]
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libOpenMeshCore.so.3.2
[alliance]
alliance-5.0-40.20090901snap.fc22.i686 requires libXm.so.2
[apx]
apx-0.1-4.fc24.noarch requires python3-pygobject3-base
[eclipse-jbosstools]
eclipse-jbosstools-as-4.2.2-1.fc22.noarch requires 
osgi(org.eclipse.tm.terminal)
[fawkes]
fawkes-core-0.5.0-26.fc24.i686 requires libmicrohttpd.so.10
fawkes-plugin-player-0.5.0-26.fc24.i686 requires libgeos-3.4.2.so
fawkes-plugin-xmlrpc-0.5.0-26.fc24.i686 requires libmicrohttpd.so.10
[gnash]
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_date_time.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_date_time.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-dejagnu-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-dejagnu-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-dejagnu-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-dejagnu-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-fileio-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-fileio-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-fileio-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-fileio-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-lirc-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-lirc-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-lirc-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-lirc-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-mysql-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-mysql-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-mysql-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-mysql-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-klash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-klash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-plugin-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:python-gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:python-gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:python-gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:python-gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
[golang-github-kraman-libcontainer]
golang-github-kraman-libcontainer-devel-0-0.4.gitd700e5b.fc24.noarch 
requires golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/netlink)
[golang-github-kubernetes-heapster]
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/google/cadvisor/info/v1)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/google/cadvisor/client)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/schema)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/registry)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/pkg)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/machine)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/etcd)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/client)

LVM and DM mounting process: questions about the interactions between systemd, dracut and blk-availability.service

2015-12-26 Thread danielkza2 
Greetings,

I've been using Fedora with a "simple" LVM setup with no problems for the least 
3 years. Recently I've decided to set up my laptop with LVM on top of LUKS in 
F23. While migration from the previous setup was relatively painless, I've been 
noting issues with shutdown: I consistently observe logs stating failure to 
properly deactivate the logical volumes and the LUKS device (as reported by 
others in bug 1097322 [1], which unfortunately has been closed due to EOL). I 
don't know if they are spurious, which led me to investigate a bit about how 
things work, and I'm failing to make sense of it.

I've noticed the existence of `blk-availability.service` in systemd. It's a 
service that does nothing on start, and calls the `blkdeactivate` executable on 
system shutdown, after the "special block-device" services (LVM, iSCSI, etc) 
have stopped. `blkdeactivate` is called with the option to umount devices in 
use. But I don't see how it can ever succeed for the system root: other 
services will still be shutting down, and systemd's unmounting phase will not 
have been reached yet. The same might hold true for non-system-root mounts as 
well, if services that depend on them are in the same situation.

My understanding was that special block-device handling was a task performed by 
dracut in the initramfs. It does have a shutdown hook called `dm-shutdown.sh` 
that uses the `dmsetup` executable to remove any device-mapper devices still 
enabled. I don't see any shutdown hooks for the LVM module, so I assume the DM 
module also takes care of them. Is my understanding correct?

Wouldn't it be possible to replace the custom DM hook with a call to 
`blkdeactivate`, and remove the `blk-availability` service from the "normal 
root" shutdown? Could that possibly work better than the current setup, since 
`blkdeactivate` claims to be capable to handle nested device-mapper setups, and 
to be able to use LVM commands in a more intelligent way (for example, 
deactivating whole volume groups at once)? Shouldn't `blkactivate` at least be 
told not to unmount the root, as it will always fail? 

Apologies if I said anything egregiously wrong, and I'd be glad to be corrected 
in that case.

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097322

Thanks and happy holidays,
Daniel Miranda
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1288707] perl-libwww-perl-6.15 is available

2015-12-26 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288707

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-libwww-perl-6.15-1.fc2 |perl-libwww-perl-6.15-1.fc2
   |4   |4
   |perl-libwww-perl-6.15-1.fc2 |perl-libwww-perl-6.15-1.fc2
   |3   |3
   ||perl-libwww-perl-6.15-1.fc2
   ||2



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1282911] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Salsa20 - Encrypt data with the Salsa20 cipher

2015-12-26 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282911



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Crypt-Salsa20-0.03-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1285428] Review Request: perl-Crypt-ScryptKDF - Scrypt password based key derivation function

2015-12-26 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285428



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Crypt-ScryptKDF-0.009-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1293613] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20151220 is available

2015-12-26 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293613



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Module-CoreList-5.20151220-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-a7856de2d7

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Specs using %define

2015-12-26 Thread Michael Schwendt 
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:37:13 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

> For fun, what was there:
> 
> %ifos linux
> %define _bindir /bin
> %endif
> 
> Wow.  I can't imagine the original purpose of that block, or how long
> ago it must have been added.
> 
> However, why not actually remove it completely?  What Fedora or EL
> release is not going to have _bindir defined?

%_bindir is not /bin
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1288707] perl-libwww-perl-6.15 is available

2015-12-26 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288707



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-libwww-perl-6.15-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Specs using %define

2015-12-26 Thread Reindl Harald 



Am 26.12.2015 um 22:45 schrieb Jason L Tibbitts III:

"MS" == Michael Schwendt  writes:


MS> %_bindir is not /bin

In Fedora there's not exactly much of a difference because of the
symlink.  But why conditionalize it on "%ifos linux" in any case?


there *is* a difference and hence of it i have a meta-package with 
Provides on any system because otherwise dependency repeatly can't be 
solved because "glibc" and "perl" where years after UsrMove not fixed 
and bugreports ignored


you get hit by it when perl/glibc are updated with the ame transaction 
while your own packages correctly using the macros for their Requires 
instead the old, hardcoded path


Provides:  %{_bindir}/perl
Provides:  %{_sbindir}/ldconfig

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Effect_of_the_UsrMove_Fedora_Feature





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Specs using %define

2015-12-26 Thread Michael Schwendt 
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:45:24 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

> MS> %_bindir is not /bin  
> 
> In Fedora there's not exactly much of a difference because of the
> symlink.

Not true.

While "rpm -q --whatprovides …" queries follow symlinks, the same
cannot be said about dependencies in repodata. Watch this:

  # repoquery --whatprovides /usr/bin/sed
  #

  # rpmls sed|grep bin
  -rwxr-xr-x  /bin/sed

  # repoquery --whatprovides /bin/sed
  sed-0:4.2.2-11.fc23.x86_64

  # repoquery --whatrequires /usr/bin/sed|wc -l
  0
  # repoquery --whatrequires /bin/sed|wc -l
  11

> But why conditionalize it on "%ifos linux" in any case?

That question is an entirely unrelated one.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Specs using %define

2015-12-26 Thread Petr Stodulka 


On 26.12.2015 22:02, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:37:13 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> 
>> For fun, what was there:
>>
>> %ifos linux
>> %define _bindir /bin
>> %endif
>>
>> Wow.  I can't imagine the original purpose of that block, or how long
>> ago it must have been added.
>>
>> However, why not actually remove it completely?  What Fedora or EL
>> release is not going to have _bindir defined?
> 
> %_bindir is not /bin
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

Is there some reason why should be the script listed in rpm with "path" /bin
instead of /usr/bin? Ok, I am not sure what about few packages (list below)
which require /bin/sed instead of "sed" package.

It's possible, that sed will not be found correctly for them and may there
should be set provides of "/bin/sed" too in that case. I haven't try that yet.

What is your opinion? Use of actual paths seems correctly for me.

Packages which require directly /bin/sed:
libnetdude
libpcapnav
mod_fcgid
os-prober
policycoreutils
redhat-lsb
resource-agents
xchat



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Specs using %define

2015-12-26 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III 
> "MS" == Michael Schwendt  writes:

MS> %_bindir is not /bin

In Fedora there's not exactly much of a difference because of the
symlink.  But why conditionalize it on "%ifos linux" in any case?

 - J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

2015-12-26 Thread updates 
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 293  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087   
dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7
  85  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-925e9374c9   
python-pymongo-3.0.3-1.el7
  55  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f   
mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7
  18  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-f82c6fc04a   
p7zip-15.09-4.el7
  14  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-67166d0519   
shellinabox-2.19-1.el7
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-0272adfe4b   
gwenhywfar-4.13.1-2.el7
  11  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-31d852eeac   
php-horde-Horde-Core-2.22.4-1.el7 php-horde-Horde-Perms-2.1.6-1.el7 
php-horde-Horde-Service-Weather-2.3.1-1.el7
  10  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-3a5146ccf7   
nodejs-handlebars-4.0.5-1.el7
   2  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-fe8f5408df   
moodle-3.0.1-1.el7
   2  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e943f1deb9   
mediawiki123-1.23.13-1.el7


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing

fio-2.2.8-2.el7
gnokii-0.6.31-12.el7
kBuild-0.1.9998-6.r2784.el7
metis-5.1.0-8.el7
multitail-6.4.2-1.el7
nodejs-is-arrayish-0.2.1-2.el7
pam-kwallet-5.5.1-1.el7
pure-ftpd-1.0.42-3.el7
python-requests-toolbelt-0.4.0-1.el7
tktable-2.10-8.el7
wine-1.8-1.el7
xrootd-4.2.3-3.el7
zarafa-7.1.14-2.el7

Details about builds:



 fio-2.2.8-2.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-ed8fdfc2b8)
 Multithreaded IO generation tool

Update Information:

Rebuild to add librdma dependency and functionality

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1292377 - Please rebuild fio to support RDMA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292377




 gnokii-0.6.31-12.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7011eaad42)
 Linux/Unix tool suite for various mobile phones

Update Information:

Rebuild for libical soname bump

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1288279 - gnokii needs to be rebuilt for EL7.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288279




 kBuild-0.1.9998-6.r2784.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-c4e77a82fb)
 A cross-platform build environment

Update Information:

Add support for aarch64 (#1291091).    add support for ppc64le which fixes
the new build failure on ppc64le

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1291091 - kBuild FTBFS on aarch64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291091




 metis-5.1.0-8.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-9ab547d8b1)
 Serial Graph Partitioning and Fill-reducing Matrix Ordering

Update Information:

- Used always 'cmake' command




 multitail-6.4.2-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2169b7060a)
 View one or multiple files like tail but with multiple windows

Update Information:

Update to 6.4.2

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1207857 - Please build multitail for epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207857




 nodejs-is-arrayish-0.2.1-2.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2e0d9d6fb2)
 Check if an object can be used like an Array

Update Information:

Enable tests as we have new coffee-script in rawhide

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1293204 - Review

robert requested branch epel7 for package perl-URI-Find

2015-12-26 Thread notifications 
robert requested branch epel7 for package perl-URI-Find
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-URI-Find/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

robert requested branch el5 for package perl-URI-Find

2015-12-26 Thread notifications 
robert requested branch el5 for package perl-URI-Find
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-URI-Find/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

robert requested branch epel7 for package perl-Schedule-Cron-Events

2015-12-26 Thread notifications 
robert requested branch epel7 for package perl-Schedule-Cron-Events
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Schedule-Cron-Events/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

robert requested branch el6 for package perl-URI-Find

2015-12-26 Thread notifications 
robert requested branch el6 for package perl-URI-Find
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-URI-Find/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1289698] perl-JSON-MaybeXS: please update in el6

2015-12-26 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289698

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-JSON-MaybeXS-1.003005-
   ||1.el6
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-12-26 21:52:54



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1282911] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Salsa20 - Encrypt data with the Salsa20 cipher

2015-12-26 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282911



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Crypt-Salsa20-0.03-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1285428] Review Request: perl-Crypt-ScryptKDF - Scrypt password based key derivation function

2015-12-26 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285428



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Crypt-ScryptKDF-0.009-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1289698] perl-JSON-MaybeXS: please update in el6

2015-12-26 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289698



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-JSON-MaybeXS-1.003005-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

2015-12-26 Thread updates 
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 189  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6828   
chicken-4.9.0.1-4.el6
 171  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031   
python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6
 165  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168   
rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6
  97  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8148   
optipng-0.7.5-5.el6
  97  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8156   
nagios-4.0.8-1.el6
  85  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-68a2c2db36   
python-pymongo-3.0.3-1.el6
  55  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e2b4b5b2fb   
mcollective-2.8.4-1.el6
  27  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-35e240edd9   
thttpd-2.25b-24.el6
  18  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-c1e2a347ee   
xsupplicant-2.2.0-13.el6
  14  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-df28a72135   
shellinabox-2.19-1.el6
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-4ea455db6d   
gwenhywfar-4.13.1-2.el6
  10  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-06bd1d268e   
nodejs-handlebars-4.0.5-1.el6
   7  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-26f2bb9749   
libpng10-1.0.66-1.el6


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing

fontawesome-fonts-4.4.0-2.el6
metis-5.1.0-8.el6
python-requests-toolbelt-0.4.0-1.el6
tktable-2.10-8.el6
xrootd-4.2.3-3.el6

Details about builds:



 fontawesome-fonts-4.4.0-2.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-ab0f23e5e4)
 Iconic font set

Update Information:

include .eot files




 metis-5.1.0-8.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1980709769)
 Serial Graph Partitioning and Fill-reducing Matrix Ordering

Update Information:

- Used always 'cmake' command




 python-requests-toolbelt-0.4.0-1.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-31a96316b2)
 A utility belt for advanced users of python-requests

Update Information:

Update to 0.4.0




 tktable-2.10-8.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-9f8ba45a3e)
 Table/matrix widget extension to Tcl/Tk

Update Information:

- Update to 2.10 - Set tclConfig in EPEL5 - Set tests in EPEL5 - tkTable.test
adjusted according to the error message in newer versions of tk (bz#1272652#c9)
- Making 'Make' sensitive to failed tests (bz#1272652#c9) - Failures not checked
in EPEL7




 xrootd-4.2.3-3.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-ad3b559eed)
 Extended ROOT file server

Update Information:

- Fix segfault due to pthread clean-up functions - Fix for c++11 usage in ceph
(backport from upstream git) - Doxygen fixes

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1278968 - crash on exit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278968

___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: HEADS UP: libwebp, ucommon soname bumps

2015-12-26 Thread Peter Robinson 
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Sandro Mani  wrote:
> Hello
>
> I'll be building libwep-0.5.0 and ucommon-7.0.0 this weekend.
>
> Affected packages for libwebp:
>
> efl
> freeimage
> gdal
> gegl03
> GraphicsMagick
> gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free
> ImageMagick
> kde-runtime-libs
> leptonica
> librasterlite2
> mapnik
> OpenImageIO
> python-pillow
> qt5-qtimageformats
> qt5-qtwebkit
> qtwebkit
> SDL2_image
> vips
> webkitgtk
> webkitgtk3
> webkitgtk4
> weston
>
> Of which I can rebuild freeimage, leptonica and python-pillow.

Please co-ordinate wit ha proven packages to get the rest done,
otherwise you'll needlesssly break composes.

>
> Affected packages for ucommon:
>
> ccrtp
> libzrtpcpp
> sflphone
> sipwitch
>
> Of which I can rebuild all but ccrtp.
>
> Best
> Sandro
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

What to do when upstream doesn't version

2015-12-26 Thread Randy Barlow 
Hello!

I wanted to add a package for erlang-zlib, but I noticed that the
upstream doesn't seem to have tagged any releases at all for the package:

https://github.com/processone/zlib/issues/6

Hopefully they will respond to my request, but if they do not, I am
curious - what is a good policy for packaging when the package doesn't
have an official version? I thought of a few schemes:

erlang-zlib--MM-DD
erlang-zlib-0.0.-MM-DD
The above, with git hash added at the end. This could also just be
entered in the description, or as a comment in the spec file.

The first scheme is more straightforward, but if the package ever gains
a version in the future it will cause upgrade problems that will
necessitate the use of the epoch of shame.

The second might be nice because it avoids the epoch, but will only work
so long as the first version of the package that upstream does tag is at
least greater than 0.0.2016 ☺

What is the collective wisdom with problems like this? Is this situation
what the epoch is for (i.e., version schemes changing)?

-- 
Randy Barlow
xmpp: bowlofe...@electronsweatshop.com
irc:  bowlofeggs on Freenode



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What to do when upstream doesn't version

2015-12-26 Thread Igor Gnatenko 
I would prefer 0.0.0-0.1.git%{shortcommit}

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015, 7:33 AM Randy Barlow 
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I wanted to add a package for erlang-zlib, but I noticed that the
> upstream doesn't seem to have tagged any releases at all for the package:
>
> https://github.com/processone/zlib/issues/6
>
> Hopefully they will respond to my request, but if they do not, I am
> curious - what is a good policy for packaging when the package doesn't
> have an official version? I thought of a few schemes:
>
> erlang-zlib--MM-DD
> erlang-zlib-0.0.-MM-DD
> The above, with git hash added at the end. This could also just be
> entered in the description, or as a comment in the spec file.
>
> The first scheme is more straightforward, but if the package ever gains
> a version in the future it will cause upgrade problems that will
> necessitate the use of the epoch of shame.
>
> The second might be nice because it avoids the epoch, but will only work
> so long as the first version of the package that upstream does tag is at
> least greater than 0.0.2016 ☺
>
> What is the collective wisdom with problems like this? Is this situation
> what the epoch is for (i.e., version schemes changing)?
>
> --
> Randy Barlow
> xmpp: bowlofe...@electronsweatshop.com
> irc:  bowlofeggs on Freenode
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

-- 

-Igor Gnatenko
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

robert requested branch epel7 for package perl-Set-Crontab

2015-12-26 Thread notifications 
robert requested branch epel7 for package perl-Set-Crontab
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Set-Crontab/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What to do when upstream doesn't version

2015-12-26 Thread Björn Esser 

I use sth. like:

%global gitrel .git%{commit_date}.%{shortcommit}

Version: 0.0.0
Release: 0.1%{?gitrel}%{?dist}

Am 27.12.2015 um 08:17 schrieb Igor Gnatenko:

I would prefer 0.0.0-0.1.git%{shortcommit}


On Sun, Dec 27, 2015, 7:33 AM Randy Barlow > wrote:

Hello!

I wanted to add a package for erlang-zlib, but I noticed that the
upstream doesn't seem to have tagged any releases at all for the
package:

https://github.com/processone/zlib/issues/6

Hopefully they will respond to my request, but if they do not, I am
curious - what is a good policy for packaging when the package doesn't
have an official version? I thought of a few schemes:

erlang-zlib--MM-DD
erlang-zlib-0.0.-MM-DD
The above, with git hash added at the end. This could also just be
entered in the description, or as a comment in the spec file.

The first scheme is more straightforward, but if the package ever gains
a version in the future it will cause upgrade problems that will
necessitate the use of the epoch of shame.

The second might be nice because it avoids the epoch, but will only work
so long as the first version of the package that upstream does tag is at
least greater than 0.0.2016 ☺

What is the collective wisdom with problems like this? Is this situation
what the epoch is for (i.e., version schemes changing)?

--
Randy Barlow
xmpp: bowlofe...@electronsweatshop.com

irc:  bowlofeggs on Freenode

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

--

-Igor Gnatenko



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org